The French "separation of powers" (if you can call it that) is still confusing to me. Would you say, for example, that Chirac has more power over France than Bush has over the U.S? Less? About the same?
Maybe a more concrete example would be helpful. Could Chirac have invaded Iraq without an act of Parliament? Could he declare French citizens "enemy combatants" and send them off to, say, St. Miquelon, to be abused, raped tortured and held indefinitely, the good old American way?
I think the French president has too much power. The constitution of the Fifth Republic, drawn up in 1958 in emergency conditions close to those of a coup d'état, was designed to put an end to parliamentary instability and put a strong hand at the helm, so to speak -- the strong hand being specifically Général de Gaulle's.
Since then, I think there has been some evolution toward rather more parliamentary activity, but the president still holds sweeping and all-permeating powers, to the extent that the office is often compared to that of a modern-day monarch. It's hard to compare with Bush, because he has Congress in lockstep, and is actively pursuing the increase of executive power. In other words, political conditions at a given time influence how much power a president has -- Chirac's on a down (referendum), Bush on an up (GOP hubris).
Foreign policy decisions in France are part of the king's -- oops, the president's -- field of power. As for declaring citizens "enemy combatants", no, I don't think that's possible -- but it isn't really a good "old" American way either, since it came in with the Patriot Act.
Conclusion -- I'd quite like to see a certain degree of constitutional reform in France. I'd just love to see a change of government in America... When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
Gridlock seems awfully nice when the alternative is this. Happy little moron, lucky little man. I wish I was a moron, my God, perhaps I am! -- Spike Milligan
